4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Brzeg, Poland.
5.  On 21 May 1999 the Brzeg District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) issued a “wanted” notice in respect of the applicant and several other men in connection with an investigation into allegations made by six women, some of whom were minors, that a group of several men had raped them, threatened them, beaten them and forced them to take drugs. The warrant for arrest was issued after the prosecution service had established that the applicant had gone into hiding and that the police had unsuccessfully attempted to arrest him.
6.  On 21 July 1999 the applicant was arrested by the police. On 27 July 1999 the Opole District Court ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences of repeated group rape with aggravated cruelty and false imprisonment while acting in an organised criminal gang. The court also found that, given that he had absconded in the past, there was a risk that the applicant might go into hiding again and try to influence the victims.
7.  The applicant appealed against the decision but his appeal was dismissed on 11 August 1999 by the Opole Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy).
8.  On 18 October 1999 the Opole Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention relying on the reasonable suspicion of his having committed the offences and on the complexity of the investigation which had not yet been terminated by the prosecutor.
9.  On 13 December 1999 the court decided that the applicant's detention should be prolonged. It considered that, in addition to the strong suspicion against the applicant, the severity of the sentence that might be imposed and the risk of his tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses justified holding him in custody. In addition, the court relied on the risk that, given that he had absconded in the past, he might go into hiding again. The court also observed that only detention on remand would secure the applicant's appearance at the trial.
10.  On 16 December 1999 the applicant was indicted before the Opole Regional Court. It appears that the first hearing was held on 26 April 2000. In 2000 the trial court held in total 13 hearings.
11.  Subsequently, the applicant's detention was prolonged by decisions of 12 June and 13 November 2000 and 15 May 2001. The decisions were based on the reasons given for the detention on previous occasions.
12.  Afterwards, as the length of the applicant's detention had reached the statutory time‑limit of 2 years laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego), the Regional Court applied to the Wrocław Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) asking for the applicant's detention to be prolonged beyond that term. On 28 June 2001 the Wrocław Court of Appeal allowed the application and prolonged his pre‑trial detention. The Court of Appeal based its decision on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed serious offences and on the risk that he might interfere with the course of justice. The court further considered that the complexity of the case constituted a special circumstance justifying his remaining in custody.
13.  On 7 November 2001 the Wrocław Court of Appeal again decided to prolong the pre-trial detention of the applicant, finding that the initial reasons for the detention were still valid. Furthermore, the court examined the course of the proceedings before the Opole Regional Court and agreed that the case was particularly complex and time‑consuming, given the number of accused and the considerable amount of evidence which had to be examined. It considered that the trial court had acted diligently as it had taken evidence from nineteen witnesses during the last seven hearings.
14.  On 13 February 2002 the Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant's detention until 15 May 2002. The court noted that the applicant had been detained on remand for a long time. However, it considered that the particular circumstances of the case justified keeping him in custody until 15 May 2002 by which time the trial should have been completed.
15.  Nevertheless, the trial court again applied to prolong the applicant's detention. On 8 May 2002 the Court of Appeal granted the application. However, it criticised the Opole Regional Court for the delay in the case and requested the trial court “to take adequate and more intensive action to finish the trial”. The court further took into account that the accused were partly responsible for the length of the proceedings because they had lodged vexatious applications for new evidence to be heard and had not complied with time-limits for filing new submissions.
16.  The applicant's numerous applications for release and appeals against the decisions prolonging his detention were to no avail.
17.  The Opole Regional Court held 23 hearings in 2001 and 21 hearings in 2002. On 31 July 2002 the Opole Regional Court gave a judgment in which it found the applicant guilty of two counts of repeated group rape with aggravated cruelty and false imprisonment committed while acting in an organised criminal gang. He was sentenced to six years' imprisonment. The applicant appealed.
18.  On 20 February 2003 the applicant was released on bail.
19.  On 2 June 2003 the Wroclaw Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy).
20.  On 11 March 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal as manifestly ill‑founded.